Well depend on how you look at it. English national team didn't even qualify for 4 out of the 5 EURO's during the late 50's, 60's and early 70's. They won 3rd place in 68, but so did in 96, led by Shearer only to lose on penos.
At the WC they won it in 66, but in 90 they were 4th, then couple of QF's and no show in 94.
In the european cups the results are comparable, but with the90's format it's harder to get to the final stages as there are more top teams rather than champions of lower leagues.
But again I agree it's very hard to compare eras.
It's all down to the system if you ask me. I couldn't possibly see Pirlo in our side, even if he was a better player than somebody else in terms of individual. For me the balance of the team and how they will stick together is what is more important rather than the name on the sheet.
Problem is that everyone has his personal favorites and it's hard to make a case who is better when comparing great players. If it is Henry or Batistuta, or Shearer and Greaves or Socrates and Kaka or somebody else.
It's hard even to measure it. For example personally if there was no restriction(in which case it's easier for the latter) but if I could choose between Cruyff and Maradona I'd still pick the former as his style fits better in my formation views rather than individual qualities. It's also pretty hard to compare 2 great players from different eras. It's easier for example C.Ronaldo and Messi as you see them both week in and week out but 10-20-30 years apart...
My first thought also before Henry was Kalle on top but he was shortly picked.
Last edited:
. Balu would have been pleased at the exclusion of him though 